The Columbian. [volume] (Bloomsburg, Pa.) 1866-1910, 1887-11-11
THE FENCE LAW.

some years ago IN an article tnen
published, took occasion to inquire, as
certain and determine what was the law
in Columbia county, more especially in
regard to swine than TO other beasts
or cattle which had been the subjects
of legislative enactment. My conclu-
sions then upon the authorities cited,
were as follows:
l. That the repeal of the Act of
March 27, 1884, Smiths Laws 90,
so far as it related to Northumberland
county, by the Act of March I, 1900,
8 Smiths Laws All, re-'nstated the
Act of May 10, 1929, Smiths Laws
1.6, which was a supplement to the
Act of l705, Smiths Laws 70-also
the Act for erecting pounds of May
10, 1929, Smiths Laws 173-and al
80 the "Act concerning cattle, horses
and sheep trespassing within this
province" of March 4, 1853, Smiths
Laws 257.
2. These laws being in force in Nor.
cumberland county on the 22d day of
March 1918 when Columbia county was
erected out of part of Northumberland,
all those laws were binding upon us,
and are yet unless modified or repeal
ed since that time. Ard therefore the
law was that rings and yokes were re-
quired for swine in Columbia county,
and that fences were regulated by the
6 Sec. of the Act of May 10, 1929, l
Smiths Laws l73, aforesaid, whereby
gloha hn lo, f,xl
sufficient, though they be not close at
the bottom, so that the distance from
the ground to the bottom thereof, ex-
ceed not nine inches, and that they be
four feet and a half high and not un-
DER And that the county court is to
appoint the viewers of fences, as per
Act of 100, l Smiths Laws l3, when
ever damages are claimed for tresspass-
ing swine either by the land owner, or
by the owner of the swine. And these
are still the laws and regulations as to
swine in Columbia county.
But in relation to other domestic
animals. some consideration of the law
is now. by reason of late legislation, re-
qulred.
By the Act of 100, Smiths Laws
13, it was enacted "That all corn.felds
and grounds kept for inclosares, with
in The said province and counties an-
nexed, shall be well fenced with fence,
at least five feet high, of sufficient rail
or logs, and close at the bottom = and
if any fence was found not to be so
constructed, the owner of the land,
driving out such trespassing cattle,
should be liable to the owner for all
damages done to said cattle by him
But if any horse, kline, sheep, hogs or
goats, or any kind of cattle, shall
break into any mans inclosure, thu
fence being of the aforesaid height and
aufliciency, and by the view of two per-
eons, for that purpose appointed by the
County Court, found and approved to
be such, then the owner of such cattle
shall be liable to make good all damages
to the owner of the inclosure.
This Act of 1900, was modified by
that of May 10, 1929, requiring the
fence TO be only four feet and half
high, and not more than nine inches
from the bottom TO the grounds and
by the Act of March 4, 1868, entitled
"An Act concerning cattle, horses and
sheep trespassing within this prov
ince,' it is provided that if any horse,
mare. colt, cattle or sheep, shall tres
pass into aEy inclosure fenced as re.
qnired by the Act of May 10, 1929,
every person being injured by such
trespass, may seize and distrain such
animal, aud recover and receive such
damages as are in the Act provided,
the proceedings and practice being also
set forth, and to be specifically fol-
lowed by the land owner.
The law in relation 10 cattle came
up 10 the Supreme Court in the
case of Gregg VS.. Gregg SIS Pehna.
227. The case was this The action
was trespass quare clauSun .fregh- =
The Plaintiff had no fence around his
field of growing oats, it being open to
the public road. The defendant allow
ed his oxen to run at large, and they
ertered the oat field where there was
no fence, and did damage to the plain
tiif's oats to the amount of So. After
discussing the fence law generally, the
Court said "rhe question here is.
whether one who leaves his improved
land open and unprotected by any
fence against the incursions of wander
ing cattle Of Others, can recover com
pensa ion for damages caused by the
incur ions of such cattle, and ia deter
mining il, the duty of the landowner
is all Impol tant." And the conclusion
IS, that "unless improved lands are en-
closed by fence the owner Is in de-
iallt and cannot maintain trespass for